“One and the same lab usually gives the second opinion for both the A and B test. Luckily for Bol,this was not the case this time;the Oslo lab gave the second opinion for the B test,” said Professor Nissen-Meyer in an email on behalf of the group,who are not connected to the Oslo lab.
“Bol would most likely still have been considered guilty (and not been able to compete in the coming world championship) if the Cologne lab had also given the second opinion for the B test!
“I must say that I do not trust the Cologne lab’s EPO testing.”
Bol was suspended after returning a positive result to his first,or A sample,after testing by WADA-accredited laboratories in Australia and Cologne.
He asked for his B sample to be tested,and it was sent to Europe for testing. The B sample came back inconclusive – neither positive nor negative – which led to Bol’s provisional ban,imposed after the A test result,being lifted.
But Nissen-Meyer said in the email that “Bol’s test results (both the A and B sample) were all CLEARLY negative and it is amazing that two WADA labs – the Australian lab that carried out the test and the Cologne lab that gave the second opinion – thought otherwise”.